The Adventures of QueerPenguin

If It Can Happen There...

More ammo for the "gay marriage leads to the death of society" doomsayers. In fact, you can hear it being loaded. *click*

For those of you following at home, here are the stages of the Gay Marriage ---> Paedophilia conveyor belt:

1/ Gay marriage is legalised in the Netherlands;

2/ A Dutch court has overturned a ban on a political party that campaigns for an age of consent reduction from 16 to 12 (essentially, paedophilia);

3/ So if we allow gay marriage here, following the Dutch precedent we would naturally have to permit a paeophile party the right to legal existence;

4/ That party could win a Senate spot and paedophilia might then be legalised;

5/ That is, same-sex marriage eventually ----> paedophilia;

6/ PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

For the record, I don't think an age of consent for any sexual activity should be lower than 16, so I would never support a party arguing for a change to 12 as one of its core policies. (I'm also not big on beastiality either. "Moo", like "no", can never mean "yes.")

But then, there are core policies of a lot of fringe parties with which I don't agree. I don't agree with One Nation's policy of "abolishing the divisive policy of multiculturalism", for example. I don't agree with Family First's opposition to the medical procedure of abortion, or its refusal to acknolwedge non-traditional families. I don't agree with the Christian Democrats' opposition to adoption by same-sex couples.

That's why I don't vote for them.

But who am I to argue they shouldn't exist? Their right to present themselves and their unfortunate policies in the electoral spectrum is what democracy is all about. If people like a party, they vote for them. If they don't, they don't. The party with the most votes wins; the ones with the least votes get nothing (unless they're Family First and can whore themselves a sweet preference deal with Labor).

And that's my point: just because a party exists in the Netherlands with some fairly extreme policies, such as the PNVD, does not automatically mean there is a large percentage of the Dutch population that supports such policies and will therefore vote them in. I don't imagine that party would get many more votes than HEMP (Help End Marijuana Prohibition) gets here (787 first preference votes, or 0.01%, at the last federal election). A survey showing that 82% of the population wants the Dutch government to do something to stop the party (and, I would wager, a further 17% not wishing to vote for it even if the government allows its right to exist) is a pretty strong argument.

But hey - I'm sure this won't stop Bolt or Albrechtsen or Akerman or Devine or (fill-in-the-blank) bringing out a slippery slope argument. "It's Mabo, it's the vibe", they'll suggest. A political climate in which same-sex marriage is the norm is the natural breeding ground for paedophilia, they'll imply.

In fact, you can even smell a whiff of the vibe in the Reuters' reporting on this story, reminding us that the Netherlands "already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage". Never mind the fact it DOESN'T have a liberal policy on age of consent - 16 is not liberal, merely common sense - the hint of worse to come must still be evident.

I'm not trivialising the sexual abuse of children - it's sick, full stop. But I am saying I agree with the ruling of the court. And I reckon, sometime soon, one of the abovementioned or other quality News Ltd/Fairfax columnists will prove my psychic phenomenon.

posted by Sam @ Tuesday, July 18, 2006